Speech That Provokes a Hostile Audience Reaction Flashcards
Terminiello v. Chicago
Speech may only be limited when it is shown to likely produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Facts: To solicit contribution, Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, plated a phonograph record that sharply attacked the Roman Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the street. His actions were not overbearing or offensive.
Issue: Whether Cantwell’s actions amounted to a breach of the peace.
Holding: They did not. The actions were not meant to provoke violence or disturb the peace. He was only trying to get people to join his religion.
Feiner v. New York
Facts: Feiner was making a speech on the street to about 80 people who had spilled out into the street. He was urging the people to come to a meeting later that night and was making derogatory statements about President Truman, the American Legion, the Mayor of Syracuse and other local political officials. Pushing and shoving broke out in the crowd. He then began telling blacks to rise up against whites. An officer told Feiner to stop, but it took him three attempts to get him to stop.
Issue: Whether Feiner was rightfully arrested and charged.
Holding: When the speaker undertakes incitement to riot, the police may intervene.
Dissent: Every speech regarding controversial issues will cause a bit of unrest. There is no evidence in the record that shows a riot was anywhere close to breaking out. Also, the police had a duty to protect Feiner, but they did nothing towards this end.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Words by their mere utterance that causes violence defines the term “fighting words” They are labled as low valued speeh
Facts: Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was distributing literature and denouncing all religion as a “racket.” The crowd was getting restless so a cop took Chaplinsky away. On the way to the police station he yelled at a guy and called him a “Fascist.” He was charged under a statute saying no one can say offensive things in a public place with intent to offend.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Holding: A word is determined to be offensive if the average man would want to fight after hearing it. The statute prohibits the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace (i.e. fighting words, profanity, obscenity and threats). Saying “damned racketeer” and “damned Fascist” is likely to provoke the average person.
Two-Level Theory of Speech: speech is either protected or unprotected by the 1st amendment according to the court’s assessment of is relative value. (looked at further later in the book)
Skokie Controversy: A suburb of Chicago, mostly Jewish. The leader of the National Socialist Party intended to hold a peaceable public assembly to protest the $350,000 insurance bond requirement to use the village parks for purposes of assembly. At the assembly, the members would be wearing nazi uniforms and flags with swastikas on them. A suit was filed that said the speech promoted hatred against persons of Jewish faith and purposely incited religious hatred. The town said there would be a counterdemonstration and violence was very likely to break out. The injunction was granted. The Illinois Supreme Court said the injunction was invalid. Ultimately, the march happened and there was some violence but nothing serious happened.
Snyder v. Phelps
Facts: Westboro Baptist Church picketed a military funeral. They peacefully displayed signs saying some fucked up shit. Snyder’s father sued for IIED. The trial judge ruled in Snyder’s favor. The COA and SC reversed.
Issue: Whether the 1st amendment protects the Westboro fuckboys’ actions.
Holding: Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of 1st amendment values and is entitled to special protection. Speech deals with public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social or other concern to the community. The subjects Westboro talks about are of public concern. Their location had nothing to do with the harm inflicted, it was only their message. Since it was a public matter being protested in a public place, it can’t be restricted.
